realtrance Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Now here's an interesting brain-twister, certainly worth some more level-headed discussion than we've been having around here lately: If one started with the premise that the State is oppressive and should be overthrown when its primary purpose becomes the funneling of public wealth into the hands of a private few, where does the recently announced Bush tax plan stand in terms of its increase or reduction of this sort of oppression? I really don't have an easy answer to that one. Talk. rt
Jeebus Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 It increases this sort of opression and should be overthrown immediately. AS we all know, the supreme end of man is an immanent and material one, and consists in happiness. This material happiness must be obtained through organized collectivism. Unfortunately, reality is governed by economic needs, and reality must deny itself in order to reach a higher degree of being. This means that means that the present organization of society must be destroyed (even through violent revolution, if necessary) because only through such destruction can a better political, economic, and social organization be achieved. ------------------ Lord Jeebus
PBBPaul Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Since the majority of the tax-cut is directed at working families with household incomes under $100K, I'd have to say that it definitely reduces any perceived "oppression". Our new and improved website Today's sample tune: Lonesome One
Chaz Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 When I first listened to the broadcast regarding the tax cut, I thought it was only going to benefit the rich, which it always seems to do anyway. In fact, the announcer said that it was going to benefit the rich. Haven Music Productions Tampa, FL www DOT havenmp DOT com
PBBPaul Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Let's see... I've only got about two minutes here so I'll check in later to find out how a program that cuts a married couple's (with two children) taxes by 96% benefits the rich. Check out this chart that was in a very liberally slanted newspaper. http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/jan03/108939.asp Our new and improved website Today's sample tune: Lonesome One
Jeebus Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Violent revolution is the only way. ------------------ Lord Jeebus
Midimonk Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Viva la revolution :thu: I cannot be bought, and I cannot be threatened. But if you put them both together then I'm your man!"
Tedster Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Should I change my name to Che? "Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine"
realtrance Posted January 9, 2003 Author Posted January 9, 2003 Sorry... maybe I should've just made this a poll. :rolleyes: rt
doug osborne Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 OK, too much information about my boring life: as Single, Head of Household, one child, income in the $60k bracket. I will give George Bush $441 less to build bombs with this year. If I all of a sudden earn $500K this year (I plan to do this, by the way :cool: ), I will give $10k less. Is this fair? Big philosophical discussion. What do I want? $10,000 friggin' dollars! It will make much more difference to my life than it will to the guy making $500k. By any measure, this program benefits the rich guy by about $9,500 over me. [quote]Originally posted by PBBPaul: [b]Let's see... I've only got about two minutes here so I'll check in later to find out how a program that cuts a married couple's (with two children) taxes by 96% benefits the rich. Check out this chart that was in a very liberally slanted newspaper. http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/jan03/108939.asp [/b][/quote] Doug Osborne Music on Bandcamp
Jeebus Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Fat Bastard Tedster: [b]Should I change my name to Che?[/b][/quote]Yes, Fat Che Tedster ---------------- Lord Jeebus
realtrance Posted January 9, 2003 Author Posted January 9, 2003 But Doug, figure it this way -- if you're making the $500k, you now know you can go out and buy that full Wiard modular system plus multiple high-quality effects units you've always wanted, without sweating it too much. If you're only makin' the $60k, you wouldn't even be considering it. But you'd still be able to spring for a Genesis 3. Just more food for thought... rt
Rick K. Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Doug Osborne: [b]OK, too much information about my boring life: as Single, Head of Household, one child, income in the $60k bracket. I will give George Bush $441 less to build bombs with this year. If I all of a sudden earn $500K this year (I plan to do this, by the way :cool: ), I will give $10k less. Is this fair? Big philosophical discussion. What do I want? $10,000 friggin' dollars! It will make much more difference to my life than it will to the guy making $500k. By any measure, this program benefits the rich guy by about $9,500 over me.[/b][/quote]What would a 60K/yr person pay in taxes versus a 500K/yr person? That's the real difference. Rick
doug osborne Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Paul, for $10k, I could live like a king in Wisconsin :wave: All the cheese I want! Doug Osborne Music on Bandcamp
realtrance Posted January 9, 2003 Author Posted January 9, 2003 Honestly, as one interesting commentator I heard the other day suggested, a significant concern for the government has to be over the possibility that the US will slip into the kind of economic catatonia that Japan has been in for the past _TEN YEARS_. None of us want that, I think. Whatever the short term gains, new yachts or whatever might come inadvertently out of the tax bill, some sort of large-scale stimulus, that's not going to be hyper-inflationary, needs to be applied, or not just the US but all the dependent economies are in for ten years of real hell. Whether this is the right one is certainly up for debate; $677 billion over five years, or ten, is really a drop in the bucket for a trillion-dollar+ economy. It will put significant brakes upon the government's ability to either make large new capital investments, or to sustain some existing, large programs. That may sound horrible, but if you think of the economic process as one where, when government spending starts to crowd out private investment in the overall picture, the overall economic growth tends to hesitate, or take on dimensions that can only be managed by significantly more government spending (i.e. that's a ball that once it starts rolling, gathers steam quickly), it then becomes logical to try to put strong limits on future gov't spending in the hope that the shrinkage of the gov't's portion of the overall economic capital picture will stimulate more aggressive private investment. What do you think? rt
GZsound Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 The number I have heard is something like 90+ million folks will get some kind of tax relief. There is also some pretty bold steps in the plan for anybody with a mutual fund or real estate investment in the form of reduced capital gains. I'm sure the liberal mantra will be how the plan benefits the rich but that dog won't hunt. Under the Bush plan, the very wealthy will not get a tax cut and actually pay more. As to the difference between making $60,000 and getting $440 back and making $500,000 and getting $10,000 back, the person making $60,000 will actually end up paying $15,000 in taxes (before earned income credits, etc.) while the guy making $500,000 will pay $190,000 in taxes. Granted the guy making $60,000 will only get a 3% return while the $500,000 guy gets a 5% return, keep in mind the $60,000 guy also gets a tax bracket deduction from previous years since all the lower brackets will be lowered. All in all, I'm glad I'm not one of the liberals that has to demonize this plan..the little guys and the old folks win. Speaking of old folks, Mr. Bush just cut drug costs by $300 billion over the next five years with a stroke of his pen. He shortened the time for the expiration of brand name drug patents which allows generics to hit the market much faster for cheaper...pretty neat huh? I'm certain NPR has had all this on the program..right? Mark G. "A man may fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame others" -- John Burroughs "I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." -- Thomas Jefferson
Oiled Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 I second the vote for violent revolution! Viva la revolution!
realtrance Posted January 9, 2003 Author Posted January 9, 2003 Mutual funds, and pensions, are the two largest investors in the stock market. Both consist of millions of private investors. If such huge investors get a tax break on dividends, it benefits all those involved. That could free up spectacular amounts of capital for further investment. Not a bad idea, as long as it's invested wisely. As my dad used to say, don't go spend it all in one place. rt
PBBPaul Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Real Trance, you're starting to sound downright conservative! Or at least reasonable :) Oh and Doug, the state tax on that cheese is pretty damned high. And the county tax. And the city tax... Our new and improved website Today's sample tune: Lonesome One
BNC Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 As for the tax system in general, no one should pay a larger PERCENT of their income than anyone else. To me, this is the closest thing to being fair that we can muster.
realtrance Posted January 9, 2003 Author Posted January 9, 2003 I prefer not to label myself... :) One thing I just really do not understand is how the media -- or even the political proponents for the tax package -- fail to convey the fact that the largest investors in the stock market in the US are institutional (i.e., pensions, mutual funds and the like), and thus do NOT represent the behavior of just this or that petty corporate bureaucracy, but rather very large scale investment committments, over a broad base of the economy. It all gets boiled down, as usual, into the cartoon stick figures we're used to dealing with in our daily non-thinking. rt
Wrave Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Seems like I heard someone in the 60k range would see about $400 and someone in the 100k range would see about $12,000. Extraordinarily fair considering how often you have to leave the golf course to earn that $100k. Well, I don't know about the rest of you but I'm gonna take my $400 and go buy controlling interest in GM so when you guys by your new SUV, I'll be the one profiting! Bwwwaaahhhahahaha! :evil: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ME: "Nobody knows the troubles I've seen!" Unknown Voice: "The Shadow do!"
doug osborne Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Progressive tax is an old idea, dating back to Jefferson and our other founding fathers. It's also a broadly used idea, found in just about every first and second world nation. We can't even begin to make this more equitable until we get rid of inequities on all sides of the tax issue (child exemptions, inheritance tax, charitable contributions, dividend tax...). We've all got to agree that this plan does nothing to make the tax code simpler (immediate profit to the government, if the IRS beaurocracy could be slimmed, but beaurocracies don't normally get slimmed by either political party-slime). If I want to lose weight, I have to eat less/exercise more (but send more cheese!). This plan does nothing to shrink government expenses, and nothing to lower our enormous debt, in fact increases it. Bad, bad, management. [quote]Originally posted by BNC: [b]As for the tax system in general, no one should pay a larger PERCENT of their income than anyone else. To me, this is the closest thing to being fair that we can muster.[/b][/quote] Doug Osborne Music on Bandcamp
Jode Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Thanks to prior experience in this forum, I'm not touching this one, except to say this: wealth in the 21st century is not a zero-sum game. One does not become wealthy by depriving another. Once wealth is accumulated, it does not merely sit and gather dust, even if it is all held in savings. It is loaned and reinvested and paid back with interest, even if all it does is sit in a bank vault. No one in this day and age hoards wealth, even if they have huge cash reserves, because the only way to truly take this wealth out of circulation is to put it under the mattress or bury it in a fruit jar in the back yard. I doubt Warren Buffet has a pile of buried cash in his backyard; his money is out there working for him. As for the general population, we'll all be better off the more money gets out of government coffers and out into the economy in private hands. All governments know how to do is spend and run up debts and deficits. "I had to have something, and it wasn't there. I couldn't go down the street and buy it, so I built it." Les Paul
Philip OKeefe Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 FLAT TAX RATE! :thu: 15% for everyone... with the first 30K exempted. Something like that would be fair IMO. Everyone pays the same rate, based on a percentage of income. Made $130,000 last year? Then you pay $15 K in taxes. Made $1,030,000? Then you pay $150,000. Calling our current situation "progressive" is, IMO, a misnomer. Charging people more (on a percentage basis) simply for being successful is unfair. Complaining that the tax cuts go to the richest people is also unfair - the wealthiest 5% pay nearly half of all tax revenues the government receives from individuals. How about this? Let's give ownership of everything to "the state". Then we can let "the state" decide who should get what. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need". After all, it has worked great in such places as North Korea, Cuba and the old USSR. :rolleyes:
doug osborne Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Progressive and Regressive are terms given to tax rates that are not the same for everyone; again (looking feverishly for references) the concept is not new. A gasoline tax is considered regressive because it taxes people who drive 100 miles a year the same percentage as people who drive 40,000 miles a year. A cigarette tax is regressive because it taxes the poor and the rich the same percentage (I say let em all choke). Wouldn't we all like to fill out our yearly taxes on a postcard... :love: Unfortunately, any recent proposal for a flat tax that was revenue neutral, so we can keep our wonderful government spending at its present porky rate, taxes on middle class earners would at least double. Take away all loopholes for the wealthy, corporations, and political contributions/lobbyists that allow many of them to not pay any tax, and watch them squeal. I'm kinda sensitive about this. The wonderful raygun tax cut of '87 raised my federal taxes about $7,000 a year, and lowered my neighbor's (income and age about twice mine) by twice that, and this pattern has been repeated with every trickle down attempt. Please, to be reasonable, let's cut spending somewhere for every new bill we pass (department of homeland pork, anyone?) How's the weather out in the Inland Empire today? [quote]Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe: [b]FLAT TAX RATE! :thu: 15% for everyone... with the first 30K exempted. Something like that would be fair IMO. Everyone pays the same rate, based on a percentage of income. ...[/b][/quote] Doug Osborne Music on Bandcamp
Philip OKeefe Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Partially cloudy, cool but not cold. Pretty close to seasonal norms. It's supposed to warm up a bit in the next couple of days.
Dogfur Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe: [b]FLAT TAX RATE! :thu: 15% for everyone... with the first 30K exempted. [/b][/quote]I am fully in agreement. [quote][b]Mark G said: I'm sure the liberal mantra will be how the plan benefits the rich but that dog won't hunt. Under the Bush plan, the very wealthy will not get a tax cut and actually pay more.[/b][/quote]Maybe I'm not up to speed ( happens alot ) but isn't the centerpiece of the Bush tax cut doing away with taxes on stock dividends? That seems to me, while affecting some of us plebes really aimed at all the highroller CEO and their banking buddies who control vast amounts of stock - While the positive benefit of any tax cut is not to be ignored, the lack of equity amongst citizens is obvious. I hardly consider that a liberal mantra, just common sense. It is the equivelent of saying "All those shopping with Gold Kreugerands get a special discount today!" Perhaps I am mistaken -please enlighten me how this is not simply a transfer of wealth ( in the form of tax revenue ) to the extremely wealthy. Woof!
ernest828 Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 I`m with Phil again on this. Whatever you make, you get taxed 10, 15, 20 percent. Whatever...thats the only way to make this work for EVERYONE. Peace, Ernest
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.